ARMA 20–1110

An Experimental Study Analyzing Effects of Cryogenic

Treatments on Porosity, Permeability, and Dynamic Elastic
Properties of Marcellus Formation Core Samples

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
Khalil, R.E., Emadi, H., and Heinze, L.R.
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Copyright 2020 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 54th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Golden, Colorado, USA, 28 June-1
July 2020. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Cryogenic treatment involves injecting cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen (LN2) into a formation to initiate and
propagate fractures and to connect existing natural fracture networks. In this research, seven core samples from Marcellus formation
were placed in a core holder, hosted in an oven, and heated up to the reservoir temperature of 66°C. LN2 (-177˚C) was then injected
into the core samples at approximately 0.14 MPa. Six core samples were pressurized using nitrogen (N2) at 1.38 and 2.76 MPa, while
the seventh core sample was not pressurized. Real-time pressure and temperature were recorded using a cryogenic pressure transducer
and a T-type thermocouple during each experiment. CT-scan, porosity, permeability, and ultrasonic velocity tests were conducted on
the core samples prior to and after conducting each experiment to investigate the effects of cryogenic treatments on the porosity,
permeability, and elastic properties. The results of CT-scan, porosity, permeability, and elastic properties revealed that implementing
the cryogenic treatment resulted in creating cracks in the core samples, and higher treatment pressures resulted in creating more
cracks. The results also revealed that the cryogenic treatment could be potentially implemented in shale oil and shale gas fields to
increase hydrocarbon production rates from these reservoirs.

1. INTRODUCTION
Hydrocarbon production from unconventional reservoirs,
which have ultimate-low permeability (microdarcies to
nanodarcies), has been significantly increased in the USA
since 2007 (EIA, 2015). To produce economically from
these reservoirs, horizontal wells need to be drilled and
multistage-hydraulic fracturing treatments must be
implemented (Janszen et al., 2015; King, 2011; Kolawole
and Ispas, 2019; Mohanty et al., 2019; Warpinski et al.,
2009; Wijaya and Sheng, 2020a; Zoback and Kohli,
2019). Recently, more than 70% of oil wells and 90% of
gas wells worldwide have been hydraulically fractured
(Wang et al., 2016). Despite drilling horizontal wells and
implementing hydraulic fracturing treatments in these
reservoirs, the production rate drops down to 10% of its
initial rate in the first two to three years of the production
period (Zoback and Kohli, 2019). Moreover, the recovery
factor of such reservoirs, after applying multi-stage
hydraulic fracturing, is still deficient, 25% in the gas
reservoirs and less than 10% in the oil reservoirs (Teklu
et al., 2019; Zoback and Kohli, 2019). A typical well in
the Marcellus shale formation, for example, requires 11 to
19 million liters of water per hydraulic fracture operation
(Cavazza, 2016). Only around 10-30% of the injected
water returns to the surface as flowback (He et al., 2013),
while the rest of the injected water stays in the formation
reducing the hydrocarbon relative permeability and
production rate in addition to the additional stress on the
local water resources (Wijaya and Sheng, 2019; Yao et
al., 2017). The first 30 days of production period after
implementing a hydraulic fracturing treatment is known
as the flowback period. The results of an experimental
study conducted by Al-Ameri et al. (2018) demonstrated
that most of the injected water during a hydraulic
fracturing treatment in unconventional reservoirs does not
flow back to the wellbore owing to high capillary pressure
near the fracture face. Moreover, water damages shale gas
formations by reducing the gas permeability due to the
surface tension or capillary effects (wicking or phase
trapping) (Rassenfoss, 2013; Wijaya and Sheng, 2020b).
Unlike hydraulic fracturing, cryogenic treatment involves
injecting cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen (LN2)
and liquid carbon dioxide (LCO2) into hot formations.
This rapid and extreme temperature difference increases
the tensile stress, which initiates new fractures for a
limited distance (Grundmann et al., 1998; Vardar and
Finnie, 1977). When LN2 brought into contact with
formations, it turns into a gaseous phase with an
extremally high liquid-to-gas expansion ratio of 1:694 (at
20˚C and atmospheric pressure), which applies high
pressure on the formations. This high pressure helps the
fractures propagate deeper into the formation and connect
existing natural fracture networks (Cha et al., 2018).
Several field studies investigated the effects of cryogenic
treatments on hydrocarbons production rates. McDaniel
et al. (1997) were able to stimulate four coalbed methane
wells and a tight sandstone well. They stated that LN2
could be safely injected into a formation through free-
hanging fiberglass pipes at fracturing rates and cryogenic
temperatures of -196 to -147˚C without damaging the
casing. The gas production of a well was increased by
43%. Grundmann et al. (1998) successfully stimulated a
well in the Devonian shale formation (Knott County,
Kentucky) using liquid nitrogen as the fracturing fluid.
The hydrocarbon production increased by 8% in twenty-
four-hour flow. However, the production data was not
available because the area was shut-in for pipeline
replacement. Rassenfoss (2013) showed that the total
production (from BlackBursh Oil & Gas) from south
Texas wells increased by 77% when natural gas liquids
(NGL) was used as the fracturing fluid than the
production from hydraulically fractured wells.
Several experimental studies have addressed the
importance of the cryogenic treatments using different
samples, including concrete, granite, coal, sandstone and
shale samples (outcrops and reservoir-depth). Kim and
Kemeny (2009) studied the effects of thermal shock on
Granite, Quartzite, KVS (Cretaceous Volcanic
Sediments), and Diabase. They slowly heated the core
samples to 100°C, then rapidly cooled them. They
concluded that the effect of the slow heating of the
samples led to crack healing, while the rapid cooling led
to crack growth. In some samples, for instance, new
cracks formed in the samples resulting in an increase in
the porosities and the tensile strength of the samples and
a decrease in the samples’ compressional and shear
velocities. On the other hand, some pre-existing cracks
were healed due to the slow heating.
Cha et al. (2014) experimentally tested the ability of
cryogenic fracturing to create fractures in concrete and
sandstone blocks using CT-scan and acoustic velocities.
The results proved that implementing cryogenic
treatments on the samples resulted in forming new cracks
in the samples and altering the acoustic measurements of
the block samples. Repeating the thermal shock technique
caused forming new visible cracks in the concrete sample
in addition to widening the existing ones. Implementing
the thermal shock technique on the sandstone sample
resulted in forming invisible cracks that can only be
proved by the acoustic tests.
Alqatahni et al. (2016) implemented cryogenic treatments
on concrete, sandstone, and shale blocks. They found that
the efficacy of the cryogenic treatment depends on the
rock properties, fluid injection pressure, treatment
duration, number of cycling, and the stress conditions.
They stated that implementing the cryogenic treatment on
the samples increased the permeability of the samples and
lowered the breakdown pressure by approximately 40%,
all of which are indications of the creation of new cracks.
Wang et al. (2016) also injected LN2 at 3.10 MPa into
concrete, low permeability sandstone, and shale samples
from Niobrara outcrop. The results demonstrated that
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
after implementing each cryogenic treatment cycle, the
permeability increased while the breakdown pressure
significantly decreased.
Jiang et al. (2018) immersed shale core samples
(Longmaxi formation, Chongqing, China) in LN2 for 20
minutes. The results revealed that the permeability of the
samples increased by 8-74% and the compressional
velocities of the samples decreased by 4-16%. The results
also revealed that the compressive strengths of the core
samples decreased by 4-34%. They concluded that
implementing the cryogenic treatments results in opening
natural fractures and creating secondary cracks.
Elwegaa et al. (2019) applied the thermal shock technique
on two shale core samples (outcrop Eagle Ford formation
and a gas shale formation in Texas). The core samples
were heated up to 82°C for one hour, and then cold N2 (-
18°C) was injected into the samples at 6.89 MPa for 15
minutes. The results showed that thermal shock created
new fractures and propagated existing fractures resulting
in changes in Young’s Moduli and Poisson’s ratios of the
core samples.
As of yet, mostly synthetic samples were used to
investigate the effects of implementing thermal shock
techniques on permeability and/or mechanical properties
of the rock samples. However, this research is the first
comprehensive one that investigated the efficacy of
implementing the cryogenic treatments on the elastic
properties (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio),
porosity, and permeability of shale gas core samples
(Marcellus formation).
2. EXPERIMENTAL WORK PROCEDURE
2.1. Core Sample Preparations
Seven core samples (3.76 cm in diameter and 4.98 cm in
length) from Marcellus shale formation, cut parallel to the
bedding, were used in this study. Both end-faces of all
core samples were polished to assure flat edges. The core
dimensions of the core samples were measured using a
digital caliper in this study.
2.2. CT-Scan Test
In this study, an NL3000 CereTom X-ray CT scanner was
used to scan the core samples prior to and after
implementing the cryogenic treatments. The CT scanner
has a minimum recognizable slice volume of 0.1225 mm3
(1 mm slice thickness), a spatial resolution of 0.35*0.35
mm, and a relative density resolution of 0.3% Hu. The
results of the CT-scan tests were used to identify
fracture(s) in the core samples prior to and after
implementing the cryogenic treatments.
2.3. Porosity Measurements
Since unconventional core samples have very low
porosity, the conventional porosity measurement method
may introduce some error in the results. Khalil et al.
(2019) investigated the optimum injection pressure to
calculate the core sample porosities. They injected helium
into three core samples at four different pressures: 0.69,
1.38, 2.07 and 2.76 MPa. The results demonstrated that
the optimum injection pressure to measure the core
sample porosities is 1.38 MPa and any increase in
pressure beyond that value did not significantly affect the
results. Hence, all the porosity measurements were
conducted using helium at 1.38 MPa injection pressure.
2.4. Permeability Measurements
Permeabilities of the core samples were measured using
New England Research (NER) AutoLab 1500 (complex
transient method). AutoLab 1500 is capable of measuring
permeability in the range of 5 nanodarcies to 50
microdarcies. After applying a confining pressure of 5.17
MPa, helium was injected at 1.72 MPa pore pressure from
the upstream side until the downstream pressure
transducer reads the same pressure (equilibrium), which
may take up to 48 hours depending on the permeability of
the core sample. Then, the pore pressure was dropped to
0.86 MPa and maintained constant for eight minutes. The
pore pressure was then increased to 2.59 MPa and
maintained for the same amount of time afterward.
Finally, the pressure was dropped back to 1.72 MPa. The
results of the downstream and upstream pressure
measurements were used to calculate the permeability of
the samples. Because of the ultralow permeability of the
core samples (nanodarcies), it took up to eight weeks to
reach the pressure equilibrium at the reservoir conditions
of 66°C and 29.23 MPa confining pressure. Hence,
confining pressure and pore pressure of 5.17 MPa and
1.72 MPa, respectively, were applied at ambient
temperature (21°C) to conduct permeability tests.
2.5. Ultrasonic Velocity
Using NER AutoLab 1500, the ultrasonic velocity
measurements were conducted on the core samples at two
different confining pressure cycles. Cycle one (ramp-up)
was from 5.17 MPa to 29.23 MPa (reservoir pressure)
with an increment of 5.17 MPa. Cycle two (ramp down)
was at the same pressures but opposite direction. At each
confining pressure, one compressional wave and two
orthogonally polarized shear waves were captured.
Finally, the arrival time was manually determined.
Dynamic Young’s moduli and dynamic Poisson’s ratios
of the core samples were calculated using the following
equations ((1) and (2)) that have been used by many
researchers (Kate, 2012; Lai et al., 2016; Olsen and
Fabricius, 2006; Saxena et al., 2018; Zoback, 2010):
𝐸 (1)
𝑣 (2)
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
Where 𝐸 is dynamic Young’s modulus (Pascal), 𝜌 is
the rock density (kg/m3), 𝑉 is the shear velocity (m/s), 𝑉
is the compressional velocity (m/s), and 𝑣 is the dynamic
Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless).
2.6. Cryogenic Treatments
Seven Marcellus core samples were placed inside a core
holder, hosted in an oven, and heated up to the reservoir
temperature of 66˚C. Sixty cubic centimeters of LN2 (-
177˚C (-287˚F)) was then injected into each core sample
at approximately 0.14 MPa (thermal shock process). Six
of the core samples were then pressurized using nitrogen
(pressurizing process) at 1.38 and 2.76 MPa (three core
samples at each pressure), while the seventh core sample
was not pressurized to study the effect of pressure on the
porosity, permeability, and the elastic properties of the
samples. The pressure and temperature of the core holder
were monitored during the test using a cryogenic pressure
transducer and a T-type thermocouple (Figure 1).
Fig. 1. Schematic of the lab cryogenic treatment setup
Figure 2 shows the real-time temperature and pressure
responses at a cryogenic treatment of 2.76 MPa. The
temperature was sharply dropped to -177˚C when LN2
was injected. Then, the oven heated the entire system back
to 66˚C within two hours and eighteen minutes. When the
setup temperature increased, its pressure increased as
well. However, cryogenic pressure-relief valves
automatically opened to maintain the desired injection
pressures of 1.38 and 2.76 MPa. When the temperature
exceeded 35˚C, the cryogenic pressure-relief valves
opened more, leading to further pressure reduction. For
safety purposes, all tubing, fitting, valves, pressure
transducers, and thermocouples in the setup must
withstand the cryogenic temperature (-177˚C).

100 3.5
50 3
Temperature ,˚C

2.5

Pressure, MPa
0

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
2
-50
1.5
-100
1
-150 0.5
-200 0  
50 0 100 150 Fig. 4. CT-scan images parallel to the beddings A) before
Time, minutes thermal shock and B) after thermal shock
Temperature Pressure
 
Fig. 2. Real-time pressure and temperature of the cryogenic
treatment at 2.76 MPa

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. XRD Test
Since the core samples were taken from the same place,
(X-Ray Diffraction) XRD test was conducted on one core
sample to determine the mineralogical compositions. The
results of the test revealed that the core sample comprised
of 69.8% calcite, 28.5% quartz, 1.2% dolomite, and 0.5%  
pyrite (Figure 3). Fig. 5. CT-scan images perpendicular to the beddings A)
before thermal shock and B) after thermal shock

 
  Fig. 6. A) toluene shows fracture face; B) some toluene
Fig. 3. Mineralogical compositions of the core samples evaporated; C) all toluene evaporated

3.2. Fracture Observation

Despite the amount of pressure used in the cryogenic
treatment tests, one or multiple fracture(s) were created in
every core sample due to the applied thermal shock.
Figure 4 shows CT-scan images that are parallel to the
core sample beddings before and after implementing the
cryogenic treatment. Figure 4B shows a fracture that did
not exist before the cryogenic treatment. Also, Figure 5A
shows a CT-scan image that is perpendicular to the
bedding before the cryogenic treatment, while Figure 5B
shows a CT-scan image after the treatment depicting the
creation of a fracture. Additionally, the core samples were
wiped with toluene to observe the fractures. Whenever a
sample has a fracture, the toluene on the fracture face
evaporated lastly showing the fracture shape (Figure 6).
3.3. Porosity Measurements
The results of the porosity measurements demonstrate
that implementing the cryogenic treatment on the core
samples resulted in increasing the porosities of the
samples, which is an indication of the creation of new
fracture(s) in the core samples. The results also revealed
that there is a direct relationship between the porosity
enhancement and the injection pressure during the
cryogenic treatment. Figure 7 shows that the porosities of
the core samples increased by 0.42, 2.22 and 3.03% when
the cryogenic treatment was implemented at injection
pressures of 0.14, 1.38 and 2.76 MPa, respectively.
 3.50% reduced by 0.36, 0.66 and 0.70%, respectively (Figure 11
and Figure 12).
Porosity increase 3.00%
2.50%
5,880
2.00%

Compressional velocity, m/s

1.50% 5,840
1.00% 5,800

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
0.50%
5,760
0.00%
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 5,720
Treatment injection pressure, MPa 5,680
  5 10 16 21 26 29 26 21 16 10 5
Fig. 7. Porosity increase due to the cryogenic treatments Confining pressure, MPa
0.14 MPa Before 0.14 MPa After
3.4. Permeability Measurements 1.38 MPa Before 1.38 MPa After
Permeability is the parameter that was affected the most 2.76 MPa Before 2.76 MPa After  
by implementing the cryogenic treatment. The results Fig. 9. Compressional velocities before and after the cryogenic
treatments
revealed that implementing the cryogenic treatment on
the core samples resulted in a significant increase in the
core samples’ permeability. As shown in Figure 8, the 0.00%
permeability of the core samples increased by 2141,

Compressional velocity
43942, and 131494% when the core samples were -0.40%
cryogenically treated at 0.14, 1.38 and 2.76 MPa,
reduction
-0.80%
respectively.
-1.20%
1000000% -1.60%
Permeability increase

100000% -2.00%
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
10000% Treatment Injection Pressure, MPa
 
1000% Fig. 10. Reductions in compressional velocities due to the
cryogenic treatments 
100%
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Treatment injection pressure, MPa 3,330
Shear velocity, m/s

  3,310
Fig. 8. Permeability increase due to the cryogenic treatments
3,290

3.5. Ultrasonic Velocities 3,270

Compressional and shear velocities increase when 3,250
confining pressure increases, (Freund, 1992) because the
core samples get squeezed, and as a result, the pore spaces 3,230
reduce. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that compressional 5 10 16 21 26 29 26 21 16 10 5
and shear velocities increase when the confining pressure Confining pressure, MPa
increases. Furthermore, any reduction in these velocities 0.14 MPa Before 0.14 MPa After
for any core sample at a constant confining pressure is an 1.38 MPa Before 1.38 MPa After
indication of the creation of new fracture(s) inside the 2.76 MPa Before 2.76 MPa After  
sample. The results demonstrated that pressurizing a core Fig. 11. Shear velocities before and after the cryogenic
sample after implementing the cryogenic treatment led to treatments
higher reductions in both velocities. The compressional
velocities decreased by 0.38, 0.56 and 0.75% when the
cryogenic treatments were implemented and the system
was pressurized at 0.14, 1.38 and 2.76 MPa, respectively
(Figure 9 and Figure 10), while the shear velocities
 0.00% 0.27
Shear velocity reduction -0.40% 0.265

Poisson's ratio
-0.80% 0.26
-1.20%
0.255

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
-1.60%
0.25
-2.00% 5 10 16 21 26 29 26 21 16 10 5
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Confining pressure, MPa
Treatment injection pressure, MPa 0.14 MPa Before 0.14 MPa After
1.38 Mpa Before 1.38 MPa After
 
Fig. 12. Reductions in shear velocities due to the 2.76 MPa Before 2.76 MPa After  
cryogenic treatments Fig. 15. Poisson’s ratios before and after the cryogenic
treatments
3.6. Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio
Implementing the cryogenic treatment on the core 1.00%
samples caused a reduction in their Young’s moduli. The

Poisson's ratio change

results demonstrated that pressurizing the core sample 0.50%
after implementing the treatment resulted in even higher
reductions. Young’s moduli of the core samples 0.00%
decreased by 0.73, 1.25, and 1.41% when the core sample
was pressurized at 0.14, 1.38 and 2.76 MPa, respectively -0.50%
(Figure 13 and Figure 14). The results also revealed that
pressurizing the core samples after implementing the -1.00%
treatment had an insignificant effect on the Poisson’s 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
ratios of the core samples, Figure 15 and Figure 16. Treatment injection pressure, MPa
74.0  
Fig. 16. Change in Poisson’s ratios due to the cryogenic
Young's Modulus, GPa

73.0 treatments
72.0 4. CONCLUSIONS
71.0 LN2 was injected into seven core samples at
70.0 approximately 0.14 MPa. Six of the core samples were
pressurized using N2 at 1.38 and 2.76 MPa (three core
69.0 samples at each pressure), while the seventh core sample
5 10 16 21 26 29 26 21 16 10 5
was not pressurized to study effects of pressure on the
Confining Pressure, MPa
porosity, permeability, and the elastic properties of the
0.14 MPa Before 0.14 MPa After samples.
1.38 MPa Before 1.38 MPa After
2.76 MPa Before 2.76 Mpa After The results of the CT-scan, porosity, and permeability
 
Fig. 13. Young’s moduli before and after the cryogenic tests proved that new fractures formed in all the core
treatments samples. Implementing cryogenic treatment on the core
samples increased their porosities and permeability by up
0.00% to 3.03% and 131494% (from 13.4 nanodarcies to 17.6
Young's Modulus reduction

-0.40% microdacries), respectively.

-0.80% The compressional and shear velocities have an inverse
relationship with the success of the cryogenic treatments.
-1.20% The results demonstrated that injecting LN2 at 0.14 MPa
-1.60% resulted in reductions in the compressional and shear
velocities by 0.38 and 0.36%, respectively. Furthermore,
-2.00% when LN2 was injected into the sample and then
0 1 2 3 pressurized, the compressional and shear velocities were
Treatment Injection Pressure, MPa reduced by up to 0.75% and 0.70%, respectively. Also,
  the Young’s moduli of the core samples reduced when the
Fig. 14. Reductions in Young’s moduli due to the cryogenic cryogenic treatment was implemented on them.
treatments 
Additionally, the results demonstrated that there is a
direct relationship between the reduction in Young’s
moduli of the core samples and the injection pressure. On
the other hand, the results showed that pressurizing the
core samples after implementing the cryogenic treatment
resulted in an insignificant alteration in the Poisson’s
ratios of the samples, a maximum of 0.37%.
The results revealed that the cryogenic treatment could be
potentially implemented in the shale oil and shale gas
fields to increase production rates from these resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Elena Melchert (Director
of the Upstream Oil & Gas Research Division of the U.S.
Department of Energy), Dr. Dustin Crandall (a Research
Engineer at the National Energy Technology Laboratory),
and Robert Vagnetti of the National Energy Technology
Laboratory for providing the core samples.
REFERENCES
1. Al-Ameri, A., T. Gamadi, I. Ispas, and M. Watson
2018, Hydraulic Fracturing Design in Shale
Formations Based on the Impact of Fracturing
Additives on the Fluid Loss and Flowback, paper
presented at SPE/AAPG Eastern Regional Meeting,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
2. Alqatahni, N. B., M. Cha, B. Yao, X. Yin, T. J.
Kneafsey, L. Wang, Y.-S. Wu, and J. L. Miskimins
2016, Experimental investigation of cryogenic
fracturing of rock specimens under true triaxial
confining stresses, paper presented at SPE Europec
featured at 78th EAGE conference and exhibition,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
3. Cavazza, M. 2016, Reducing Freshwater
Consumption in the Marcellus Shale Play by
Recycling Flowback With Acid Mine Drainage, paper
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
4. Cha, M., N. B. Alqahtani, B. Yao, X. Yin, T. J.
Kneafsey, L. Wang, Y.-S. Wu, and J. L. Miskimins.
2018, Cryogenic fracturing of wellbores under true
triaxial-confining stresses: Experimental
investigation. Spe Journal,23, 04: 1,271-271,289
5. Cha, M., X. Yin, T. Kneafsey, B. Johanson, N.
Alqahtani, J. Miskimins, T. Patterson, and Y.-S. Wu.
2014, Cryogenic fracturing for reservoir stimulation–
Laboratory studies. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering,124, 436-450
6. EIA, U. 2015, Drilling productivity report for key tight
oil and shale gas regions.
7. Elwegaa, K., H. Emadi, and M. Ramezanian 2019,
Investigating Effects of Thermal Shock Technique on
Unconventional Reservoir Rock Mechanical
Properties, paper presented at 53rd US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, American
Rock Mechanics Association.
8. Freund, D. 1992, Ultrasonic compressional and shear
velocities in dry clastic rocks as a function of porosity,
clay content, and confining pressure. Geophysical
Journal International,108, 1: 125-135
9. Grundmann, S., G. Rodvelt, G. Dials, and R. Allen.
1998, Cryogenic nitrogen as a hydraulic fracturing
fluid in the Devonian Shale, SPE eastern regional
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pittsburgh,
10. He, C., T. Zhang, and R. D. Vidic. 2013, Use of
abandoned mine drainage for the development of
unconventional gas resources. Disruptive Science and
Technology,1, 4: 169-176
11. Janszen, M., T. Bakker, and P. Zitha 2015, Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Dutch Posedonia Shale, paper
presented at SPE European Formation Damage
Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
12. Jiang, L., Y. Cheng, Z. Han, Q. Gao, C. Yan, G. Wang,
H. Wang, and L. Fu 2018, Experimental Investigation
on Pore Characteristics and Carrying Capacity of
Longmaxi Shale Under Liquid Nitrogen Freezing and
Thawing, paper presented at IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
13. Kate, J. 2012, Influence of saturation on dynamic
elastic constants of sandstones, paper presented at
ISRM International Symposium-EUROCK 2012,
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering.
14. Khalil, R., H. Emadi, and K. Elwegaa 2019,
Investigation of Rock Properties of the Marcellus
Formation–An Experimental Study, paper presented at
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
15. Kim, K., and J. Kemeny 2009, Effect of thermal shock
and rapid unloading on mechanical rock properties,
paper presented at 43rd US Rock Mechanics
Symposium & 4th US-Canada Rock Mechanics
Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association.
16. King, H. 2011, Hydraulic fracturing of oil & gas wells
drilled in shale. Geology. com,
17. Kolawole, O., and I. Ispas. 2019, Interaction between
hydraulic fractures and natural fractures: current status
and prospective directions. Journal of Petroleum
Exploration and Production Technology,1-22
18. Lai, B., H. Li, J. Zhang, D. Jacobi, and D. Georgi.
2016, Water-content effects on dynamic elastic
properties of organic-rich shale. SPE Journal,21, 02:
635-647
19. McDaniel, B., S. R. Grundmann, W. D. Kendrick, D.
R. Wilson, and S. W. Jordan 1997, Field applications
of cryogenic nitrogen as a hydraulic fracturing fluid,
paper presented at SPE annual technical conference
and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
20. Mohanty, K. K., S. Tong, C. Miller, T. Zeng, M. M.
Honarpour, E. Turek, and D. D. Peck. 2019, Improved
 hydrocarbon recovery using mixtures of energizing 33. Zoback, M. D., and A. H. Kohli. 2019.
chemicals in unconventional reservoirs. SPE Unconventional reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, University Press.
21. Olsen, C., and I. L. Fabricius. 2006 Static and dynamic
Young's modulus of North Sea chalk.In SEG
Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006, edited,
pp. 1918-1922, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/ARMAUSRMS/proceedings-pdf/ARMA20/All-ARMA20/ARMA-2020-1110/2255626/arma-2020-1110.pdf/1 by University of Petroleum China Beijing user on 16 June 2021
22. Rassenfoss, S. 2013, In search of the waterless
fracture. Journal of petroleum technology,65, 06: 46-
54
23. Saxena, V., M. Krief, and L. Adam. 2018. Handbook
of Borehole Acoustics and Rock Physics for Reservoir
Characterization. Elsevier.
24. Teklu, T. W., D. Park, H. Jung, K. Amini, and H.
Abass. 2019, Effect of Dilute Acid on Hydraulic
Fracturing of Carbonate-Rich Shales: Experimental
Study. SPE Production & Operations,34, 01: 170-184
25. Vardar, Ö., and I. Finnie. 1977, The prediction of
fracture in brittle solids subjected to very short
duration tensile stresses. International Journal of
Fracture,13, 2: 115-131
26. Wang, L., B. Yao, M. Cha, N. B. Alqahtani, T. W.
Patterson, T. J. Kneafsey, J. L. Miskimins, X. Yin, and
Y.-S. Wu. 2016, Waterless fracturing technologies for
unconventional reservoirs-opportunities for liquid
nitrogen. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering,35, 160-174
27. Warpinski, N. R., M. J. Mayerhofer, M. C. Vincent, C.
L. Cipolla, and E. Lolon. 2009, Stimulating
unconventional reservoirs: maximizing network
growth while optimizing fracture conductivity.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,48, 10:
39-51
28. Wijaya, N., and J. J. Sheng. 2019, Comparative study
of well soaking timing (pre vs. post flowback) for
water blockage removal from matrix-fracture
interface. Petroleum,
29. Wijaya, N., and J. J. Sheng. 2020a, Optimum
surfactant criteria for controlling invasion-induced
water blockage in tight water-wet cores. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering,106931
30. Wijaya, N., and J. J. Sheng. 2020b, Probabilistic
forecasting and economic evaluation of pressure-
drawdown effect in unconventional oil reservoirs
under uncertainty of water blockage severity. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering,185, 106646
31. Yao, B., L. Wang, T. Patterson, T. Kneafsey, X. Yin,
and Y. Wu 2017, Experimental study and modeling of
cryogenic fracturing treatment of synthetic rock
samples using liquid nitrogen under tri-axial stresses,
paper presented at SPE Unconventional Resources
Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
32. Zoback, M. D. 2010. Reservoir geomechanics.
Cambridge University Press.